Visual Obstruction

[Richvee]

We saw it in the Met/Dodger game, and detailed by CCC. 

Its obstruction in OBR as per the Umpire manual

It's obstruction in NCAA 8-3-f, pg 80...Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner's opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play.

I can't find a reference in FED...Anyone have something? 

[834k3r]

My initial read of 8-3-2. would seem to support visual OBS, but when you cross-reference that with the definition of OBS in 2-22-1, it says only "hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play." Not exactly clear.

IMHO, it's possible to get visual OBS in FED, but in a code written in such a way that we umpires apparently can't adjudicate delayed dead ball balks, would they really trust us to get visual OBS?

[jimurrayalterego]

9 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

My initial read of 8-3-2. would seem to support visual OBS, but when you cross-reference that with the definition of OBS in 2-22-1, it says only "hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play." Not exactly clear.

IMHO, it's possible to get visual OBS in FED, but in a code written in such a way that we umpires apparently can't adjudicate delayed dead ball balks, would they really trust us to get visual OBS?

CC, with no cite, says in the 2011 BRD to treat visual obstruction as in NCAA 8-3-f which requires intent. As does the MLBUM interp referencing "facing the runner." So I wonder if they had intel to judge intent in the Met - Dodger game?

[Richvee]

13 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

My initial read of 8-3-2. would seem to support visual OBS, but when you cross-reference that with the definition of OBS in 2-22-1, it says only "hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play." Not exactly clear.

IMHO, it's possible to get visual OBS in FED, but in a code written in such a way that we umpires apparently can't adjudicate delayed dead ball balks, would they really trust us to get visual OBS?

Yet there is a case play for an R1 "interfering" with F3 by leading off and deliberately getting in the line of sight between F3 and F1

[Velho]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So I wonder if they had intel to judge intent in the Met - Dodger game?

But not intel to judge intent by R2 Rizzo walking into 6-4-3 DP batted ball last year. 🤔

Absent Muncy saying "watch this" of course...

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So I wonder if they had intel to judge intent in the Met - Dodger game?

You could watch him and easily see it was intentional.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

You could watch him and easily see it was intentional.

But Gibson could not easily tell if Baty did it intentionally and passed on calling it in the T13. R3 had to lean to see catch but Baty was already in position and only moved back and not laterally. Dodgers wanted OBS but it was moot as the throw went to 1B and R3 scored.

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, 834k3r said:

My initial read of 8-3-2. would seem to support visual OBS, but when you cross-reference that with the definition of OBS in 2-22-1, it says only "hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play." Not exactly clear.

IMHO, it's possible to get visual OBS in FED, but in a code written in such a way that we umpires apparently can't adjudicate delayed dead ball balks, would they really trust us to get visual OBS?

"Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder . . . "

Seems pretty clear cut to me.  Positioning yourself is an act.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

But Gibson could not easily tell if Baty did it intentionally and passed on calling it in the T13. R3 had to lean to see catch but Baty was already in position and only moved back and not laterally. Dodgers wanted OBS but it was moot as the throw went to 1B and R3 scored.

Huh?

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Huh?

Same actions were done by Mets F5. You can see it at 0:28 in below

https://sporty-clips.mlb.com/Nnk5MVlfV0ZRVkV3dEdEUT09X0J3WlZWMUlDWGdzQVdWTUxCUUFIQVZJQUFBTldWVlFBVUZZQ1ZWRUZCVklEQVZFQw==.mp4

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

Same actions were done by Mets F5. You can see it at 0:28 in below

Not even close to the same.

[jimurrayalterego]

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Not even close to the same.

I don't see Gibson point anything in the 13th inning play but Muncy and Roberts thought he called it on Bates. After the review for the play at 1B the 3BC had some conversation about the play and whether Gibson told him it would have been called but it had no effect and the 3BC told Roberts that is pure speculation. Apple uses Brian Gorman for umpire consult and he chimed in on the first OBS but was silent on the second one. I don't know if he works remote and they buzz him for an opinion.

"“You look at that visual obstruction, he called it twice, once on us, once on them," Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said. "And that’s a Gibson umpire discretion call. So at least he was consistent.”

[Richvee]

I don’t know. On the 13th, it looks like Bates is between the two bags. That’s nowhere near in line with F9. I think it was the Dodger bench getting on Gibson. 3BC playing peacemaker, and Roberts not really knowing what happened. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I don’t know. On the 13th, it looks like Bates is between the two bags. That’s nowhere near in line with F9. I think it was the Dodger bench getting on Gibson. 3BC playing peacemaker, and Roberts not really knowing what happened. 

There's a point in time where R3 is shown having to lean to the left to see. They also show Gibson not really lining up the runner and catch where he would see the possible OBS.

[jimurrayalterego]

Another no call. Offense is OK with it because it's never called. Has MLB told umps to ignore it?

 

[The Man in Blue]

 

NOT A RULE IN THE RULEBOOK . . . Just saying.

Another reason I hate the way case plays are often presented and revered.  A circumstance presented in a case play is NOT a condition for a rule application.

Also, the reference to the obstruction rule is incorrect, as the runner was on third base.  He wouldn't have been awarded . . . 

Thus, advancing to home is not going beyond the awarded base.

 

I'll admit that I didn't think he was in between runner/fielder on first watch, but that was due to the angle of the camera.  I also thought, "you have a coach right there and the runner shouldn't be looking at the ball."

Seeing the replay and how F5 kept looking back and changing direction . . . seems like the intent was pretty clear, as is the wording of the actual rule.

 

[Velho]

57 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

NOT A RULE IN THE RULEBOOK . . . Just saying.

Another reason I hate the way case plays are often presented and revered.  A circumstance presented in a case play is NOT a condition for a rule application.

True it's not in the rulebook. Actual source is an "Approved Ruling" from the MLBUM.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Thus, advancing to home is not going beyond the awarded base.

You lost me on that part.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Seeing the replay and how F5 kept looking back and changing direction . . . seems like the intent was pretty clear, as is the wording of the actual rule.

So U3 MITB, it's not clear to me, what's your ruling?

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

True it's not in the rulebook. Actual source is an "Approved Ruling" from the MLBUM.

I assumed that is where it came from, but if you are going to portend to be an authoritative source and make videos, get the details correct.

Looking at all the "great video" comments is making me cringe.

3 hours ago, Velho said:

You lost me on that part.

The host of the video invoked the "advanced beyond award clause."  This is a horrible misunderstanding of the rule if he believes this was the reason.

EDIT TO ADD: In the comments, somebody points this out and he acknowledges it.  Yet, the video remains, providing faulty educational material.  The number of people saying the runner would have been awarded third base . . . GAH!  I want to comment so badly, but I won't sign up for Youtube.  You guys have to put up with my ranting.  EDIT EDIT: OMFG!!!!  

 

3 hours ago, Velho said:

So U3 MITB, it's not clear to me, what's your ruling?

I can't give you one at this point.  If I had seen F5 jockeying the way he was, I feel it is a clear obstruction, award home since he was played on.  I would like to think if I was U3, I would have seen that jockeying.  However, lining up the runner and the catch, I can see why U3 may not see the jockeying.  It would be helpful if we knew why he didn't call it -- didn't see it OR didn't judge it was obstruction?

[jimurrayalterego]

23 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I assumed that is where it came from, but if you are going to portend to be an authoritative source and make videos, get the details correct.

Looking at all the "great video" comments is making me cringe.

The host of the video invoked the "advanced beyond award clause."  This is a horrible misunderstanding of the rule if he believes this was the reason.

EDIT TO ADD: In the comments, somebody points this out and he acknowledges it.  Yet, the video remains, providing faulty educational material.  The number of people saying the runner would have been awarded third base . . . GAH!  I want to comment so badly, but I won't sign up for Youtube.  You guys have to put up with my ranting.  EDIT EDIT: OMFG!!!!  

 

I can't give you one at this point.  If I had seen F5 jockeying the way he was, I feel it is a clear obstruction, award home since he was played on.  I would like to think if I was U3, I would have seen that jockeying.  However, lining up the runner and the catch, I can see why U3 may not see the jockeying.  It would be helpful if we knew why he didn't call it -- didn't see it OR didn't judge it was obstruction?

" If I had seen F5 jockeying the way he was, I feel it is a clear obstruction, award home since he was played on. "

I had it as Type 2 since there was a throw but no runner to play on at HP. 

"helpful if we knew why he didn't call it"

Since the manager said "they don't call it" in the postgame I'm guessing they've been told not to call after the first call and no call recently.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Looking at all the "great video" comments is making me cringe.

FYI - those are usually bots. See them enough and they fade into the background.

Not that I don't appreciate's @jimurrayalterego work but YouTube is overwhelmed with bots providing inane kudos, referencing some random investing guru, or pushing some crypto product.

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

However, lining up the runner and the catch, I can see why U3 may not see the jockeying

I'm thinking if you're lining up the runner with the touch of the glove, aren't we pretty much on the same sightline as R3?  I'd guess if U3 thought F5 was obstructing, U3 himself would have been impeded on that same sightline and would have needed to adjust. Since U3 got the same look of the play as R3, and didn't need to adjust left or right, that would mean F5 wasn't hindering R3 either. . 

[Velho]

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

'd guess if U3 thought F5 was obstructing, U3 himself would have been impeded on that same sightline and would have needed to adjust. Since U3 got the same look of the play as R3, and didn't need to adjust left or right, that would mean F5 wasn't hindering R3 either. . 

I follow that but that only goes so far since U3 isn't doing anything but seeing the play. He's not preparing for any bodily action. R3 having to lean or stretch will throw off his starting position and momentum (as well as consume mental cycles).

U3 did have to lean out. Maybe he didn't think much of it since he's behind R3 as well as F5, but he didn't have a clean line of sight.

I'm in the camp that, explicitly or implicitly, they've decided not to call this. Which means we'll see it more and more.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

" If I had seen F5 jockeying the way he was, I feel it is a clear obstruction, award home since he was played on. "

I had it as Type 2 since there was a throw but no runner to play on at HP. 

"helpful if we knew why he didn't call it"

Since the manager said "they don't call it" in the postgame I'm guessing they've been told not to call after the first call and no call recently.

What was the throw?

I took a similar line of thought with the LL obstruction play with F3 throwing to F5: that the fielder should not be excused until an actual tag/move on the runner is imminent -- not when a ball is in flight. There is a timing element that is never discussed or accounted for in the rules. As it is, though, the throw was a play on the runner. The runner changing his mind during the play is irrelevant.

As for the answer, that could be it, but since we don't know . . . IMO, our conversations on this board should take to simultaneous approaches: (1) under the ruleset of the play presented, and (2) under the rulesets that we commonly call (yes, that will vary).  This way we can understand what was called, but know how to call it for our game.

[beerguy55]

Doing my amateur Jomboy impersonation, when the runner claims the fielder was blocking him it looks like the ump says "he's not".  That says to me he doesn't believe it occurred, rather than doesn't care it occurred.

Maybe it's because he could see the catch, so concluded the runner should have too.

Whereas in the Mets video it's quite apparent that Muncy steps into the runner's line of sight, because he also steps into the umpire's.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Doing my amateur Jomboy impersonation, when the runner claims the fielder was blocking him it looks like the ump says "he's not".  That says to me he doesn't believe it occurred, rather than doesn't care it occurred.

Maybe it's because he could see the catch, so concluded the runner should have too.

Whereas in the Mets video it's quite apparent that Muncy steps into the runner's line of sight, because he also steps into the umpire's.

Pretty much what I said last weekend